Talk:World War II

Active discussions
World War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
World War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Romania's Ion Antonescu to Main Axis LeadersEdit

Romania played a huge role in the European conflict, which is overlooked by most historians because the Eastern Front is seen as a fight between Germany and the USSR, which overshadows Romania's actions in the war.

But Romania's role to the course of World War II was much more important than it seems. In fact, if Romania wouldn't have joined the Axis, the invasion of the USSR would have been impossible. Hitler himself said it. Without Romania's oil and troops, Germany would never have been able to do what it did in WW2. You can listen to the Hitler-Mannerheim recording, that's where he says it (it's on YouTube).

Here are some quotes of historians on this:

The British historian Dennis Deletant has asserted that, Romania's crucial contributions to the Axis war effort, including having the third largest Axis army in Europe and sustaining the German war effort through oil and other materiel, meant that it was "on a par with Italy as a principal ally of Germany and not in the category of a minor Axis satellite".[1]

According to historian and author Mark Axworthy, the second most important Axis army in Europe, arguably, belonged to Romania, though, this is disputed since many would agree that this position goes to the Italian army.[2]

Thus, I believe people should stop ignoring Romania's role in the conflict and should, instead, see Romania as a main Axis power, like Italy and Japan.

Therefore, in my opinion, Ion Antonescu should be added to the Main Axis Leaders section in the infobox. Lupishor (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the past, and the standing consensus is that the leaders should remain as they are. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dennis Deletant, "Romania", in David Stahel, Joining Hitler's Crusade (Cambridge University Press, 2017), p. 78
  2. ^ Third Axis Fourth Ally: Romanian Armed Forces in the European War, 1941–1945, by Mark Axworthy, Cornel Scafeş and Cristian Crăciunoiu, page 9

Possibly adding all countries linked to the Allied and Axis PowersEdit

Instead of just showing the main allied and axis leaders, we should give credit to all the countries that had bigger roles throughout the war. Like Romania and Yugoslavia for example. Age20035 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Listing all details defeats the purpose of an infobox, so there must be limits. Listing the "main" leaders fits. What defines "bigger" roles, how many additional leaders are we talking about, and why are they needed in the infobox? --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a long standing consensus, based on an extensive RfC, to limit the numbers of countries and leaders in the infobox to only the major powers involved in the war. Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yugoslavia did not have a big enough role during the war to justify this. I disagree with this approach to the infobox, as this has been discussed ad nauseum per Nick-D. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Many other pages about wars list almost, if not all of the combatants. Gravestep (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

-Howdy. I was an editor a decade ago and haven't been back much since, but just want to point out this conversation has literally been going on for 15 years. Just stick with the major players else everyone gets upset that not all 90+ countries are represented and then it just looks a mess.

--108.53.1.82 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese LeadershipEdit

Under Axis Leaders in the information bubble, I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to add Hideki Tojo either in addition to Hirohito or instead of him? Despite the literal cult of personality surrounding him, there's scholarly debate about the degree to which the emperor was directly involved in decision making. Tojo's military government was, at least day-to-day, calling the shots. You can see this reflected in, for example, how Hirohito had to have someone smuggle an audio recording ordering surrender to be played on radio in order to force the military government to surrender - that was also, by the way, the first time a Japanese emperor had ever spoken directly to the Japanese public. Quodfui (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See List of prime ministers of Japan. Hideki Tojo was only in power from 1941 to 1944. Other wartime Prime Ministers of Japan were Nobuyuki Abe (1939-1940), Mitsumasa Yonai (1940), Fumimaro Konoe (1940-1941), Kuniaki Koiso (1944-1945), Kantarō Suzuki (1945), and Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni (1945). Dimadick (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree--Tojo was much more powerful than the emperor 1941-44 and he made the major decisions according to all the RS. He should be included--as he is featured in top billing in all the major histories I have seen. The other prime ministers mattered far less because the government had little power in 1944-45. Typical = (1) Warlord: Tojo Against the World by EP Hoyt; (2) Sutton, "The Trial of Tojo: The Most Important Trial in All History?." American Bar Association Journal; (3) Weinberg, Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders (Tojo represents Japan); (4) Butow, Tojo and the Coming of the War. Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the debate over the role of Hirohito is long over, with the consensus being that Hirohito was the most important figure in the Japanese Government's decision making. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Hitohito's involvement in the war still remins ambiguous. We do know, however, that Hideki Tojo was largely involved in the war. Gravestep (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hirohito played a decisive role at the very end in terms of surrender, but said little before then, and did not make diplomatic or military decisions. Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The other leaders list only their most supreme leader. If we're making a special case for Japan, do similar cases apply to the others? What, exactly, is Japan's special case, in terms that don't appear to rely on just editors' opinions? --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't we list Churchill and Mussolini? Both of them acted "under" others who were heads of state (i.e. the kings of the UK and Italy) but who were not the ones who actively set and executed policy. Hirohito chosen profession was that of marine biologist, not something you normally associate with a man active in political affairs. I don't think the Japanese emperor has much in the way of reserve powers, i.e. the ability to dislodge a political logjam, although in this instance of standing in the way of those who wanted his nation to go down in flames, he apparently had enough authority as the symbol of the nation. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we don't list figureheads. So, Hirohito was a figurehead? Beyond "I don't think...", do we have a source for this? --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
yes before 1945 -- he almost always followed the military except in August `1945. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I repeat, source? --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at " The Emperor had followed the precepts of constitutional monarchy in wartime by following the advice given to him by his cabinet. However, in 1945, he was able to intervene in favour of accepting the terms of the Potsdam declaration because he had been invited to do so by his Supreme War Council. This version of the emperor’s historical role as deliverer of peace, and a victim of war, was restated for posterity by Prime Minister Takeshita Noboru in his eulogy for the Sho¯wa Emperor in January 1989: ‘He resolutely brought to an end the war that had broken out in spite of his wishes, out of a determination to prevent further suffering of the people, regardless of the consequences to his own person’ (Takeshita 1989)." [Kersten, Rikki. "Revisionism, reaction and the'symbol emperor' in post-war Japan." Japan Forum. Vol. 15. No. 1. 2003. page 19] Rjensen (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. An assertion has been made that the emperor was just a figurehead during WWII, like the kings of the UK and Italy, and therefore should not be listed as the sole leader of Japan in the infobox. We might interpret the above comments as evidence for such, but that's SYNTH. Besides, the claim that he "almost always" acted so undermines even this SYNTH, as sometimes deciding to not act as a figurehead implies not actually being a figurehead, as does his specifically leading Japan at the end to make peace.
Whatever the arguments, we have to follow the sources. If they agree that the emperor had no real power during WWII, then we must not list him as the sole leader in the infobox. If they agree he was in power, then we must list him. If the sources conflict, then perhaps we shouldn't attempt to list a leader, per the whole purpose of infoboxes to quickly present only basic and objective facts. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see much in the way of sources supporting the strong-emperor point of view, either here or at the article on Hirohito (a lot of citation-needed templates there). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Serbs in WWIIEdit

Hello, I would suggest that we include the information that the persecution of Serb by Ustashe was a part of wider Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia campaign. That important piece of information is currently lacking. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC) :In the war crimes section it mentions the persecution of Serbs by Ustashe. It should be mentioned that it was part of a Genocide by the Ustahse, correct. However the mass murder of Croats and Muslims by Chetniks is missing in the article. Which was deemed Genocide in nature by a number of historians, though not as major as that against the Serbs by Ustashe. PortalTwo (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Form - Format QuestionEdit

I have been using the layout of this article as a template for other articles that I create or edit. My question relates to the placement of Notes, Citations, and References. Currently (April 26, 2020) in the World War II article I am seeing what I consider references in among the citations (e.g. Citations 1,3,4,6,7,8, etc.) I am also seeing what I consider notes in among the citations (e.g. 25,63,70,139,145, etc.).

Experienced editors can you comment? Thanks, Virgil Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020Edit

82.7.91.10 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC) can you please change the text to less complacated

You might find the World War II article on the simple English Wikipedia more helpful - please see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding Indian Ocean, and maybe the Arctic Ocean to the 'Location' part of the infoboxEdit

The Indian was a major theatre of combat that is mentioned only once in the article. The Pacific War article has the Indian Ocean in the 'Location' part but I still think it deserves its own mention in the World War II infobox because of the numerous naval actions between all major warring powers(Monsun U-Boats, Italian Submarines, German cruisers) as well as the Battle of Madagascar. Having only the Atlantic and Pacific in the 'Locations' part makes it seem like those were the only 2 oceans that had combat, even though the other two did aswell. IvanNik772 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Harry TrumanEdit

Under the section titled "Commanders and Leaders", would it be too much to add Harry Truman under Franklin Roosevelt? After all, Truman ordered the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he took over when Roosevelt died in office. I know it may be weird to have 2 different leaders for one country, but you can annotate it by adding a symbol next to Roosevelt indicating he died in office. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Total fatalitiesEdit

The introduction (second sentence) states an estimated 75-80 million deaths however the casualties section states an estimate of 60 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Casualties_and_war_crimes Clearly either one or both figures here need to be reviewed and amended.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:D8D:1321:FCEC:1F78 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the BulgeEdit

Hello, All:

A search for "Battle of the Bulge" in this article returned nothing. I found the separate article on "Battle of the Bulge" to find the date. With that I found the following:

On 16 December 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes and along with the French-German border to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement.[1]

What do you think about modifying this sentence to explicitly include the name of that battle? For example:

On 16 December 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes and along with the French-German border to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement. (These events are commonly called "the Battle of the Bulge" or the "Ardennes Counteroffensive."[1]

Thanks to all who have helped make this a "Good Article". DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article can't include every battle.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The article regularly "pipes" the names of battles for the sake of readability, noting that it covers a huge number of battles. Naming them all individually would be cumbersome. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. After making my own list of major events of WWII, I concluded that you are correct: That Battle of the Bulge made headlines but does not qualify as anywhere close to marking a turning point in the war. It slowed the allied advance into Germany by a couple of months, maybe. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly one of the major events of the war, this article just doesn't specifically name it. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Parker 2004, pp. xiii–xiv, 6–8, 68–70, 329–30

1937 and 1939 start datesEdit

Would it be more accurate to say WW2 started in 1937 (in Asia) and in 1939 (in Europe)? https://brill.com/view/journals/jcmh/4/2/article-p204_5.xml?language=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnolence (talkcontribs) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. The war in Asia in 1937 was just a regional war at that point, not a world war. The consensus is that WW2 started in 1939. --Nug (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
World War II#Chronology discusses this issue. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
No, the overwhelming academic consensus is that WWII ran from 1939 to 1945. Until the majority of the secondary reliable sources independent of the subject say that WWII started in 1937, we stick with what we have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020Edit

In the first paragraph, fourth sentence, first word, I believe there is a typographical error. It should read Tens instead of Ten. 2600:6C44:657F:BD8B:A5BF:8822:5B9D:AC1C (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done TheImaCow (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"was" or "is" the deadliest conflict in human history?Edit

@Rodney Baggins: Thanks for the thought, but to me saying, "World War II is" anything sounds like World War II hasn't ended yet. Accordingly, I'm reverting your change from "was" to "is" the deadliest conflict ... . DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, saying "World War II was the deadliest conflict" means that it once was but is no longer the deadliest because some other conflict has since surpassed it in deadliness. If you imagine "human history" laid out as a timeline, and look at the death tolls of various conflicts, you would pick out WWII as the deadliest on that timeline and you would say "it is the deadliest" on the timeline of human history. Fine to say "it was a very deadly conflict", yes past tense all the way, but when looking to use the superlative in describing it in terms of human history, which is a linear timeline with points of interest marked out on it, WWII is the deadliest in terms of that timeline. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, to me it sounds as though World War Two is, as in remains to this day, the "deadliest war in history". Britmax (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Britmax: I'm confused: Do you prefer "WWII was the deadliest" or "is the deadliest"?
Obviously, I prefer "was" while User:Rodney Baggins prefers "is".
I don't know if this matters, but I was raised in Kansas and have spent most of my life in the US. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
My tendency is towards "is". What goes in the article depends, as always, on consensus. Britmax (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Why not change it to "World War II remains the deadliest..."? Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Or "World War II still ranks as the deadliest ..."? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
DavidMCEddy, I like that better. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

An alternative solution might be to change the sentence entirely, from: "World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 70 to 85 million fatalities..." to "The deadliest conflict in human history, World War II was marked by 70 to 85 million fatalities..." Then the "deadliest conflict" bit is contained within a noun phrase that sits in apposition with World War II, rather than being connected to it using a main verb "is" or "was".
For the record, I was picked up on this very point in the Tenerife Airport Disaster article a few weeks ago in this edit, where User:Echoedmyron showed me the error of my ways and I now agree with him. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably need to qualify "deadliest" in terms of total killed. In terms of per capita death rate I would reckon the conflict during the period of the Three Kingdoms in 184AD would have been deadlier, with a number of some 37 million killed, given the world's total population nearly 2000 years ago was a lot lower than in 1940. --Nug (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think "was" is OK, as there is no evidence of anyone being confused about the issue. Surely if there was a deadlier conflict, it would be mentioned. I think the per capita issue is bogus. When Cain killed Abel, that amounted to the 25% destruction of the world's population. Or, hang on, the Bible indicates there were far more people living at the point... In fact, we have no reliable statistics for the distant past. I don't think "deadliest" implies per capita, but I think it might be better just to simply say "with the highest death toll".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It should be "was", as is would be present tense, indicating that the war is still ongoing, which it is not. FrançaisauNord (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over PolandEdit

@Monopoly31121993(2):, @Nick-D:, @Peacemaker67:

Is it fair to say that an edit war has been in progress between User:Monopoly31121993(2) and User:Nick-D since 2020-06-19T15:00:47 over whether the 1939 German invasion of Poland should be illustrated with a photo of [[:File: Polish infantry marching -2 1939.jpg|thumb|upright|Soldiers of the Polish Army during the defence of Poland, September 1939]] or of [[:File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg|upright|right|thumb|Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the September invasion]]?

This article has received almost 27,000 views per day on average since 2015-07-01. User:Nick-D contributed 6 different edits to this article since 2020-05-06T14:17:47. User:Monopoly31121993(2) contributed 9 in the same period.

Can we please discuss here the concerns of User:Monopoly31121993(2) and User:Nick-D on this issue?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that Monopoly31121993 is edit warring in unreferenced casualty figures, in an article where the long-standing view has been to not mention casualties of individual battles as the article covers such a huge number of them (e.g., why mention civilian casualties in the invasion of Poland and not, say, those during the invasions of Malaya, Latvia, Norway, the liberation of France or many, many others). The rationale for replacing the image also isn't clear to me, though it is a good photo. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I prefer the strafing image. Otherwise, there are three images of soldiers, which seems to be an overkill. If the caption is listed w/o the last, misleading statement, would that be acceptable? As in:
Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life.
It's a famous image and it brings in an element of human suffering that diversifies, so to speak, the images in this section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I agree with Nick that we shouldn't be inserting casualty figures from individual battles or even campaigns into this article, it is supposed to be a high-level overview of the topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I was unaware that there was a standing agreement against listing causality figures (which I will suggest in a separate post should be amended in certain cases). I included the new text, which Nick-D reverted for having "excessive detail" when 1, it was barely longer than the previous text and 2, it more accurately characterized the actual invasion of Poland (having been based on the more detailed article on the topic (Invasion of Poland) and 3, included several helpful links for users to other pages (e.g.bombing of Wieluń, Battle of Mokra, Bombing of Warsaw in World War II) which were not even mentioned in the prior text.

As far as adding the image without the causality figure, I guess that's OK but I don't see why we are neglecting to mention the scale of civilian suffering is in the interest of Wikipedians when discussing this topic. Especially given the fact that civilians made up such a high proportion of the invasion's causality figures (something like double the combined German and Polish military losses). I would prefer ::Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. Between 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the invasion, nearly double the combined number of military deaths for Poland and all of the invading countries.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) The Life Magazine image conveys much more than just another picture of soldiers (many of which are probably staged).
(2) A single mention, early in the narrative of the actual conflict, of this horrific civilian casualty figure will alert the reader to this aspect of WW2. If the purpose of a summary article like this is to raise questions in the encyclopedia user's mind about more in-depth aspects of the subject, then this is the ideal point to break the "rule" of no individual casualty figures. I think the article would be better to have this casualty figure mentioned, simply to flag civilian casualties as an issue. Poland's civilian deaths from WW2 were among the worst (depends exactly how you measure them), so justifying the choice of their figures to do this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The Casualties and war crimes section discusses casualties, and notes Polish civilian casualties specifically. Giving partial figures with a photo which misleadingly implies that they were caused primarily by the German Air Force doesn't seem helpful to readers, and could further worse the problems with the article being over-crowded with stuff. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not take any inference from the proposed caption that the Luftwaffe were the main source of civilian casualties in Poland - I cannot detect any such implication in the text put forward. Nor do I think others would readily take the inference that you suggest. I doubt that anyone actually knows the proportion of Polish civilians killed in conflict (as opposed to whilst captives, or similar) by air force versus ground force action. Given the amount of bombing and the general lack of sophisticated air raid shelters for the civilian population, one might suspect that it is a significant number. The whole purpose of the caption is to get the reader to look further in the article. We all know that most consultations of Wikipedia are partial - just dipping in and out of an article (especially a more lengthy one, such as this).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected edit and Charles de Gaulle in Main ...Edit

May someone fix the unexpected edit that was an accident, and I think that Charles de Gaulle and Free France should be in Main Combatants and main Leaders. The Axis defeat would probably not possible without De Gaulle and the Free France Movement. Free France was also the Provisional Goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miggy72 (talkcontribs) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020Edit

The page has been altered. Someone put a giant american flag in the page main boxes. and minimized everything else in said boxes. The page needs to be reset. Bcs1080 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Stewart Bcs1080 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. Calidum 17:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

US Congressional authorization for oil embargo?Edit

On 2020-06-28 part of this article read, "In July 1941 Japan sent troops to southern Indochina, thus threatening British and Dutch possessions in the Far East. The United States, United Kingdom, and other Western governments reacted to this move with a freeze on Japanese assets and a total oil embargo."

QUESTION: Was that embargo authorized by the US Congress?

I had earlier heard that the US Congress had authorized an embargo on scrap iron shipped to Japan, and that FDR extended that to oil without authorization from the US Congress. However, I don't have a reference for whether the oil embargo was imposed by Congress or only by FDR with questions about his legal authority to do so.

I think this issue is relevant to what is happening today in terms of what the mainstream media choose to emphasize and what they tend to suppress. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ParagraphsEdit

Guidelines say we should have no more than four paragraphs in the lead, and just earlier this month that is exactly what it had. Not sure how we got to this current, not at all well-composed, six paragraphs. Keiiri (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Because people keep making well meaning small changes to it, and over-time they've led to a bloated lead (as well as bloat elsewhere in the article). The lead would be a good priority for improvements. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes by Monopoly31121993(2)Edit

I've just reverted a series of changes by Monopoly31121993(2) (talk · contribs). These changes added a number of inaccuracies (for instance, wrongly claiming that the "Commonwealth" declared war on Germany when it was the individual dominions which did so and that there was an "Axis" rather than just a Japanese offensive in the Pacific), changed the wording attributed to other references for unclear reasons and had not been previously discussed. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, please stop mass reverting all of my edits which took me hours to implement in the page. If there are specific things you would like to change that's fine but mass reverting everything that I have done is just blocking me from editing the page which I assume in good faith is not your intention but certainly is starting to look that way to me. By the way, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were not part of the the British Empire in 1939 when they declared war on Germany. They were, as I wrote, part of the "Commonwealth." Lets try to improve Wikipedia together and not mass revert constructive edits.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss your proposed changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Monopoly31121993(2) the statement that Nick-D is "mass reverting all of my edits" and "mass reverting everything that I have done" is not true. Nick has rv'd some of your edits and per his request and WP:BRD you should be willing to discuss the changes in question on the talk page. The WP:ONUS is on yourself to start the discussion with your proposed changes and find a consensus for the changes.   // Timothy :: talk  11:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Technology in the Battle of the Atlantic: balanceEdit

I note that the sentence "Gradually, improving Allied technologies such as the Leigh light, hedgehog, squid, and homing torpedoes proved victorious over the German submarines." is tagged with a citation needed template. I suggest that, also, the content of this sentence has an incorrect balance.

To quote from the biography (The Fighting Captain) of Frederic John Walker by Alan Burn: "The [Ultra codebreaking] information may well have turned the balance of the Battle of the Atlantic, but by the time it was filtered through to the ships at sea it could never be absolutely reliable and was usually not sufficiently up to date to be of positive, immediate, tactical use. It put the Group in the right area but it was aircraft sightings, radar at night and HF/DF bearings that pinpointed the targets within striking range of the ships." (bold added)

Reading this biography, it is clear that Huff duff was a very important tool for surface ships in detecting U-boats. Hedgehog and squid, though useful inventions which did sink U-boats, were not fitted to many ships, whilst Huff Duff was ubiquitous by the spring of 1943. Hedgehog was only marginally more effective than depth charges. The Leigh light had the "public relations" advantage that its use was obvious to the Kriegsmarine, so it was OK to show photos of a big searchlight attached to the wing of an aircraft. Similarly, hedgehog and squid would both be reported back as a new forward firing weapon by any surviving submarine. In contrast, Huff duff was kept a close secret - there was a general belief in the German navy that the only effective DF of their signals was done by shore-based listening stations. I think the result of that secrecy has had an impact on Wikipedia content.

I suggest that the sentence needs to be rewritten, with suitable sources, but including Huff duff in the list of important technologies in the fight against U-boats.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Is there some wording and sources you'd like to suggest here? Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I am working on obtaining access to some sources that I believe may give an authoritative overview of the relative importance of the various technical developments of anti-submarine warfare in WW2 (in the broadest sense, so including Ultra). So I will hold off suggesting any form of words until I have read further. Of course, the sources may turn out not to cover this subject. The purpose in mentioning on the talk page at this stage is to alert any others with suitable sources to assist in finding the best form of words. I think it is important to find sources that have done the interpretation of the information - anyone could trawl through concise data on U-boat sinkings and get a completely wrong picture of the importance of a piece of technology. That is because sinkings are not the only factor in winning the anti-submarine war: if U-boats are sufficiently pursued (not necessarily, even, attacked), they are not able to get into an attacking position.
So far I am just relying on (1) "When it became possible in 1942 to mount high-frequency DF (HF/DF, or ‘huff-duff’) on board escorts – something the Germans thought technically unlikely – this became a very important tactical tool." (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas . Yale University Press.)(This quote is from a whole section that addresses aircraft use, the early use of radar in U-boat kills, Ultra, etc.); (2) the biography of Walker (already mentioned) which has a good amount of technical information alongside the narrative. Since Walker is associated with about 10% of all surface vessel U-boat sinkings, this must have significance.
I note, incidentally, that there seems to be no coverage of German technological advances. Consideration needs to be given to the GNAT (torpedo) - the article suggests that only the Allies produced this technology - yet the German device was very effective. Also, the Bold (decoy) or "submarine bubble target" was an influential new device - but not mentioned. Clearly that is a lot to get into one sentence, so decisions will need to be made. However, a complete summary knowledge of WW2 anti-submarine warfare technical developments has to be a starting point.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020Edit

the beginning of the war was in 1939 Omar Zalok (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says "1 September 1939" which is the accepted date. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020Edit

In "Allies close in (1944)", it says: "After that, the Western Allies slowly pushed into Germany, but failed to cross the Ruhr river in a large offensive." Operation Queen was aimed against the lesser-known Rur river (without "h"), not the Ruhr river, see the linked article. The Rur is west of the Rhine and is on a north-south-axis. Thus, it was reachable for the Allies in 44 and crossing it made sense. The Ruhr is east of the Rhine and runs from east to west. The allies weren't there at all in 44 and crossing it never had any strategic value. Coca-Coela (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Coca-Coela (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Done: Your attention to detail is much appreciated. — Tartan357  (Talk) 10:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Return to "World War II" page.